That should be a doddle for Dan given the HadCRUT3/PDO+AMO+Sunspot Integral correlation is 0.96.

The IPCC has a stable of models (an “ensemble”). All using the same IPCC RF methodology and forcing expressions. All using the same RCP scenarios. And ALL (except one in an update of 38) are on the wrong trajectory:-

]]>By: Rob Taylorhttps://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/09/doctoring-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-120612
Sun, 30 Sep 2012 05:36:26 +0000https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/?p=15006#comment-120612Great, let Dan publish and become renowned as the man who overturned 150 years of work in his spare time – Nobel prize and all that.

Sure, Einstein pulled it off, but I rather suspect Einstein would not have wasted his time on this site…

BTW, Dick, the IPCC does not have any GCMs, as the IPCC does no research or modelling; it simply reports on the work of others.

]]>By: Richard C (NZ)https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/09/doctoring-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-120598
Sun, 30 Sep 2012 04:19:26 +0000https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/?p=15006#comment-120598“…just another lost sock in the great laundromat of denial”

Whose model beats the socks (and pants) off the IPCC GCMs.

So does Scafetta’s (“in a peer-reviewed climate journal” no less).

So does a ‘Monkey Mean’ polynomial projection.

]]>By: Rob Taylorhttps://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/09/doctoring-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-120595
Sun, 30 Sep 2012 04:13:24 +0000https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/?p=15006#comment-120595Dan, I look forward to publication of your theory in a peer-reviewed climate journal; until then, you are just another lost sock in the great laundromat of denial.
]]>By: Dan Pangburnhttps://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/09/doctoring-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-120498
Sat, 29 Sep 2012 17:18:52 +0000https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/?p=15006#comment-120498Rob,

Since 2001 the atmospheric carbon dioxide level has now increased by 25.6% of the increase from 1800 to 2001 while the average global temperature trend is flat thru 2011 (slightly down if you include the part of 2012 that has been reported so far). How much wider will this separation between the rising carbon dioxide level and not rising temperature trend need to get for you and the rest of the ‘consensus’ to realize that you are egregiously wrong and have misled the rest of the world?

Humanity has wasted over 100 billion (with a B) dollars in failed attempts using super computers to demonstrate that added atmospheric CO2 is a primary cause of global warming and in misguided activities to try to do something about it.

You are apparently unable to fathom that an engineer, using a desk top computer, some science and a little engineering, could figure out what the ‘consensus’ has failed to do. My equation calculates average global temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide with an accuracy of over 88%. When calibrated to measurements thru 1965 and using actual sunspot numbers, it predicted the average global temperature trend value in 2005 within 0.054°C. When calibrated thru 1995 and using actual sunspot numbers, it predicted the average global temperature trend value in 2011 within 0.002°C. The ‘consensus’ would be ecstatic to do anywhere near this well.

A graph of. the average global temperature prediction through 2037 is shown in the pdf made public 11/24/11. The land temperature will cool about twice as fast.